RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/R/61 
20 May 2011 
 (11-2568) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 31 MARCH 2011 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its sixty -first regular meeting on 31 March 2011 under 
the Chairmanship of Ms. Valeria Csukasi of Uruguay. 
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/ AIR/3724 was adopted with:  (i) the addition of 
comments by New Zealand on the US Dairy Assessment Program under agenda item 1.A
2;  (ii) the 
withdrawal of a question by Australia to th e European Union (EU) under agenda item 1.B(i)3 as well 
as a question by the United States to Colombia unde r agenda item 1.B(vii);  (iii) the addition of a 
statement by the EU under agenda item 1.B(iv) on its  consultations with Ukraine under Article 12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture;  and (iv) the additi on of a request by Swaz iland under agenda item 2.D 
on the WTO List of NFIDCs. 
3. The Chairperson recalled the Committee's Working Procedures4 which, inter alia , require that 
questions be transmitted to both the Secretariat and the concerned Members within the prescribed 
timelines in order to be included and proper ly annotated in the convening airgram. 
I. THE REVIEW PROCESS 
4. Pursuant to the Committee's decision in 20095, Section I of the present summary report should 
be read in conjunction with documents G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 and G/AG/W/83 which respectively compile all the questions and responses that were made  available to the Secretariat in writing.  Any 
follow-up comments to the concerns raised under the Review Process are reflected in Parts A and B 
below. 
A. M
ATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMEN TATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
Ukraine's administration of tariff rate quota for raw cane sugar 
 
5. In relation to the administration of its tari ff rate quota (TRQ) for raw cane sugar, Ukraine 
announced that it had recently submitted a new Table MA:1 notification6 and that the relevant 
regulations were posted on the webs ite of the enquiry point.  Ukraine remained open for discussion. 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 Paragraph 8 of G/AG/W/83 refers. 
3 Paragraph 40 of document G/AG/W/81 refers. 
4 Paragraphs 8 and 10 of G/AG/1 refer. 
5 Paragraph 38(a) of G/AG/R/57 refers. 
6 G/AG/N/UKR/8, dated 25 March 2011. G/AG/R/61 
Page 2  
 
  6. A few cane sugar exporters expressed concerns in  the matter.  Colombia considered that the 
new administration method constituted a system of pr ior licensing.  El Salvador and Guatemala raised 
specific questions on the licence approval criteria a pplied by the relevant government agencies, the 
automatic versus non-automatic issuance mechanis m, and compatibility with Article 3.2 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  Guatem ala further sought details on the timelines for 
approval and whether the distribution of the TRQ would be on an annual basis.  Moreover, 
El Salvador asked whether applications should be  submitted to either one or both of the approval 
entities, i.e. State Agency on Material Reserve a nd the Ministry of Agrari an Policy and Food, and 
whether licences were granted in order of receipt of applications. 
U.S. export subsidies on dairy 
 7. India took note of the response supplied by the United States
7 and reserved the right to come 
back to this matter at a later stage.  
Costa Rica's domestic support commitments 
 8. Members praised Costa Rica's transparency in  providing a detailed update on measures taken 
to reform its rice sector, including the proposed introduction of Green Box measures.  Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, the EU, India, New Zealand, Paki stan, the Philippines, Thai land, the United States, 
and Uruguay expressed their continue d concerns with Costa Rica's breach of its Final Bound Total 
AMS.  Australia underlined that the matter raised important systemic concerns with regard to the 
implementation of the existing commitments, partic ularly at a time when Members were undertaking 
efforts to further reduce and discipline trade- distorting domestic support in the Doha Round.  
New Zealand and Uruguay sought detailed informa tion on the programmes to be implemented.  
Referring to other recent instances of breach where,  unlike Costa Rica, the concerned Members were 
able to bring their support within the bound limits, some intervening delegations called for a specific 
time-frame for WTO compliance. 
9. Noting similarities in the importance of the ri ce sector in the two countries, the Philippines 
appreciated Costa Rica's reform process but stressed that it lacked the required financial resources to 
introduce comparable policies.  Pakistan hoped that  the current review would help Costa Rica deal 
effectively with its domestic constituency.  Costa Rica replied that its government was doing its best 
to ensure compliance within the shortest possi ble timeframe.  Costa Rica undertook to keep the 
Committee informed of progress made in this regard. 
Thailand's requirements to export rice stocks 
 
10. Highlighting the importance of the rice sector, the Philippines shared Thailand's concern on 
the issue of exports of rice stocks and stressed the significant role of adequate world market supplies 
as well as the need to maintain a co mfortable level of domestic production. 
U.S. Dairy Import Assessment Program 
 
11. In light of New Zealand's comments
8, Australia registered its concern on the recently-
published Final Rule on the National Dairy Promo tion and Research Program which would for the 
first time impose a levy on US imports of dairy products and other products derived from dairy such 
as caseins and mixtures, commencing on 1 August 2011.   Australia recognized that the United States 
had made some amendments in the Final Rule to  address some of the issues raised.  However, 
Australia remained concerned that the extension of  the programme to dairy products might result in 
                                                      
7 Paragraph 7 of G/AG/W/83 refers. 
8 Paragraph 8 of G/AG/W/83 refers.   G/AG/R/61 
 Page 3 
 
 
  less favourable treatment of imported dairy pro ducts inconsistent with  US obligations under 
Article III of GATT 1994.  In particular, the met hod of assessment for imported products seemed to 
place a greater administrative burden on dairy impor ters than on domestic milk producers.  In 
addition, it would appear that imported dairy produc ts would not receive comparable benefits from the 
promotion and research programme.  Australia was cu rrently examining the consistency of the Final 
Rule with international trade rules and was consu lting with industry to assess the impact that the new 
US regulations might have on Aust ralian dairy exporters.  The EU shared Australia's concerns.  
Pakistan highlighted its own systemic concerns , hoping that the United States would follow Costa 
Rica's example in reporting back on reforms and providing timelines. 
B. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram  
12. Since the 18 November 2010 regular session, 53 notifications had been circulated.  Annex 1 
compiles those notifications in respect of which quest ions have been raised in advance of the issuance 
of the convening airgram. 
(i) Tariff rate quotas 
13. With regard to Canada's fluid milk TRQ, Austra lia recalled that it had raised the same issue at 
the 46th and 56th Committee on Agriculture9 and remained concerned that the TRQ was not open to 
importers of fluid milk as it is for Canadian reside nts.  Australia questioned the alleged global nature 
of the TRQ when restrictions based  on personal use were maintained.  
14. Regarding Guatemala's Table MA:2 notificati on, the EU wondered if for transparency 
reasons, and as a matter of best practice, Guatemala could also include those TRQs in the notification 
for which applied tariffs were lower than th e bound in-quota duties during the reporting period. 
(ii) Domestic support 
15. Concerning the calculation and reporting of Brazil' s interest rate subsidies, the EU and the 
United States welcomed the indication that Braz il was considering reviewing the use of the SELIC 
rate as a benchmark.10  The EU encouraged Brazil's continue d transparency on the issue while the 
United States expressed interest in receiving value of production estimates for livestock. 
16. Referring to the introductory statement to Cana da's domestic support notification, Australia 
stressed that if Canada considered that the pr ogrammes concerned did indeed meet the Green Box 
criteria, they should be notified and revised as such.  Australia recalled that the notifications covering 
2006-2009 were still outstanding and that it was importa nt to be able to m onitor Canada's domestic 
support trends. 
17. With regard to the EU's classification of certain domestic support programmes, Australia 
stressed that the information sought clearly went be yond the scope of the Table DS:2 notifications.  In 
relation to the Aid for Bananas programme, Australi a specifically requested confirmation on whether 
payments were made on a per hectare or a per tonne basis.  The EU referred Australia to page 7 of 
notification G/AG/N/EEC/69 where it is stated that  banana support is "production-limiting since the 
payments are based on fixed maximum cultivated areas and yields". 
                                                      
9 Refer to pages 19-20 of G/AG/R/46 and page 15 of G/AG/R/56, respectively. 
10 Paragraph 22 of G/AG/W/83 refers. G/AG/R/61 
Page 4  
 
  18. On the US "State Credit Programs", the EU re quested clarification as to whether they had 
been effectively discontinued in 1994 and, if so , the reason for continued notification until 2006/07. 
19. New Zealand, whilst welcoming the objective of the EU reforms of abolishing export 
subsidies on fruit and vegetables, recalled that th e general best practice was that Table DS:2 
notifications should be made befo re, or within 30 days of a measure being introduced.  In this 
particular case, Australia would have appreciated  seeing the relevant Table DS:2 two years ago. 
(iii) Export restrictions and prohibitions 
20. In relation to the notification of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the EU stated 
that it would analyse the quantitative information prov ided in the reply to assess the supply situation, 
and underlined that as a general matter, the EU view ed that export restrictions were not desirable. 
21. The notification by the Kyrgyz Republic was welcomed by the EU, Israel and the United 
States, with Israel highlighting its dependency on  the import of grains both for human consumption 
and animal feed.  The EU looked forward to analysin g supply data to ascertain the existence of critical 
shortages, and was encouraged to learn that Uk raine did not intend to extend the measure after 
5 May 2011.  Whilst expressing regret at the increasi ng amount of time being spent on the review of 
export restrictions, the United States urged other Me mbers to notify likewise in order to afford the 
opportunity to ask questions.  The United States considered that increased recourse to export 
restrictions affected food security in importing countries, shielding local producers from price signals and thus hampering further production.   
22. Ukraine, referring to its Table ER:1 notifica tion, confirmed that export quotas had been 
applied on certain agricultural products up to 31 March 2011 and that, at the same time, volumes of 
quotas for grain and corn had been increased.  Taking into consideration the current unstable situation 
on the domestic and foreign markets, the previous day, the Government of Ukraine had decided to 
extend the use of quotas until July 2011.  The rele vant notification had been submitted to the 
Secretariat.
11  The EU, Japan, Switzerland and the United States registered their concern on the 
announced extension of the export restrictions.  Du ring their bilateral consultations with Ukraine12, 
the EU had understood that there would be no furthe r extension of export restrictions.  Japan enquired 
about the timing of the notifications and questioned Ukraine's rationale behind further extension of 
export restrictions given that production of wheat , barley and corn in 2010/11 exceeded domestic 
demand.  Japan and Switzerland expressed interest in  Ukraine's consultations with other Members. 
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram  
23. The Committee took note of the notifications ci rculated in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram but in respect of which no ques tions had been raised by that date under the 
Committee's Working Procedures (Annex 2).  There was no discussion under this agenda item. 
(c) Notifications circulated or made available after the date on which the notice convening the 
present meeting was issued  
24. The Committee took note of the notifications circ ulated after the issuance of the convening 
airgram (Annex 3).  These notifications will be revert ed to for substantive review at the June 2011 
meeting, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working Procedures. 
                                                      
11 G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2, dated 7 April 2011. 
12 See also under agenda item 1.B(iv), paragraphs 27-28.  G/AG/R/61 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings  
25. The Chairperson recalled that delegations have the possibility to inform the Committee of the 
outcome of discussions which are of general interest , but which may have been pursued bilaterally as 
a result of the review of notifications. 
26. In relation to its export restrictions notification,  Ukraine stated that it had held several rounds 
of consultations with the EU Delegation, as well as consultations with the Delegation of the United 
States during which they had presented detailed in formation concerning the use of export quotas. 
27. The EU reported on its consultations with Ukraine under Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  Two rounds of talks were held, durin g which the exchange of questions and answers 
focused on the supply situation in Ukraine, quota ma nagement policies and Ukraine's plans for future 
policy.  Based on the answers provided, the EU co ntinued to believe that the measures were not 
justified, that they were applied in a discriminator y manner.  In the EU's view, an extension beyond 
31 March 2011 was therefore unjustified.  Information provided suggested that, as from 1 April 2011, Ukraine would move away from the use of export quo tas, to an alternative system based on export 
duties, nevertheless an export restriction.  A draft law to  this effect was in preparation.  In the interval, 
press reports foresaw, as was confirmed during the present meeting, that Ukraine may extend export 
quotas beyond 1 April until such time as export duties could be implemented. 
28. The EU stated that it considered the use of e xport restrictions, whether in the form of quotas 
or duties, detrimental to the stability of internationa l trade flows, and deplored their proliferation in 
the region.  According to the EU, these measures di srupted trade flows and, as a consequence, could 
prejudice the willingness of international investors to  maintain and improve the trading infrastructure 
in the countries concerned.  Given that in the medium- to long-term, no party would benefit from the 
imposition of such restrictions, the EU called upon Ukraine to end all forms of restrictions as of 
1 April 2011. 
29. Ukraine reiterated that it had a right to apply e xport restrictions in line with Article 12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  While recognizing that a ny restriction raised concerns, Ukraine insisted 
that Members should recognize the circumstances that  led to the application of such measures.  
Ukraine offered to share additional details concer ning those circumstances with the Committee and 
interested Members.  Ukraine also  underlined that the food situation on the world market was difficult 
enough to oblige governments to take appropriate measures to stabilize the social situation.  Some 
countries were able to subsidize their agricultura l sectors, whilst in others such resources were 
limited.  Ukraine pointed out that between Dece mber 2010 and January 2011, a high proportion of 
applications for grain export licen ces had been considered favourably. 
(e) Counter-notifications
 
30. The Committee took note that no counter-notif ications had been received under Article 18.7 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process  
31. The Chairperson recalled that WTO/AIR/3714 co ntained a reminder concerning outstanding 
responses to questions raised under the Review Pro cess.  The Secretariat maintained contact with 
delegations still owing written responses to ensure the completion of the relevant sections of the 
compilations of responses. G/AG/R/61 
Page 6  
 
  (g) Overdue notifications
 
32. Document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.5 dated 30 March 2011, showing the current status of 
Members' compliance with notification obligations, was made available.  Australia raised questions to 
Canada, China, Egypt, India, Korea and Turkey, and the United States raised a question to Peru.13  
Australia recognized the Secretariat's efforts of recent years in providing technical assistance to 
Members in the preparation of notifications, a powerful tool for the Committee to oversee 
implementation of commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture.  Australia recalled that it had 
been posing questions on this topic to some Members since the 52nd Committee on Agriculture and 
hoped to be advised shortly that no tifications had been submitted.   
33. The United States, joining the voices of other delegations in previous meetings, expressed 
deep concern regarding overdue notifications, in part icular in the area of domestic support.  Failure to 
make timely submissions called into question the u sefulness of the Committee especially in light of 
recent price volatility and Members' changing poli cy responses.  The Unite d States considered it 
imperative for the Committee to be able to mon itor and understand Members' policies and current 
levels of domestic support.  In many cases, out-d ated information on policies, some no longer in 
effect, bore little resemblance to current support.  Ma ny key Members appeared to have been steadily 
increasing government support in recent years, not always transparently notified to the Committee.  The United States urged all Members to address th is problem in order to promote meaningful 
discussion and dialogue and fulfil the mandate of the Committee. 
34. The full points raised and responses thereto, provided in writing, are compiled in documents 
G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 and G/AG/W/83, respectively.   
II. OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. I
MPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES14 
35. The Chairperson recalled that the situation had not changed since the circulation of the 2003 
and 2006 reports to the General Council.15 In advance of the meeting, an addendum to the 
Compendium of Documents on Implementation-Related Issues  had been circulated16 to account for 
(i) the November 2010 annual monitoring exercise to en sure the follow-up to the Marrakesh Decision;  
(ii) the information session which had been held following the meeting with the Coordinator of the 
UN High Level Task Force on the Global Food Secu rity Crisis;  (iii) the Food Aid Committee's 
decision in December 2010 to begin the formal process of renegotiating the Food Aid Convention, 
1999;  and (iv) the relevant Table NF:1 and MA:1  notifications that had been circulated since 
5 November 2010. 
36. Argentina stated that, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the establishment of additional and sp ecific disciplines on export credits, export credit 
guarantees and insurance programmes remained an  outstanding implementation issue resulting from 
the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.  Argentina requested that this item be retained on the 
agenda of the Committee on Agriculture in regular session. 
                                                      
13 Paragraphs 92-98 of G/AG/W/83 refer. 
14 WT/MIN(01)/17 refers. 
15 G/AG/16 and Add.1 refer. 
16 G/AG/W/70/Rev.2/Add.1 refers.  G/AG/R/61 
 Page 7 
 
 
  B. BEST PRACTICES  
37. The Chairperson recalled that due to time constr aints, this agenda item had not been taken up 
during the regular session in November 2010.  Considering Members' proposals for "best practices" listed in document G/AG/W/73/Rev.2, the starting point  remained the same, i.e. the need to base the 
work on existing requirements and notification formats;  the voluntary nature of such "best practices";  
the need to obtain a balance between "timely subm ission" and "complete submission" of notifications. 
38. The Chairperson reported that during informal open-ended consultations held on this matter 
on 2 December 2010, Members had considered favourably the suggested follow-up contained in the afore-mentioned document.  Severa l delegations had reiterated their interest in the Secretariat 
preparing standardized excel formats for the submis sion of notifications, to which the Secretariat had 
confirmed that this was planned in the context of the creation of the On-line Submission of 
Notifications system, a longer-term project.  During these consultations, the Secretariat had provided additional details on data-sharing issues, via existing datasets or information systems in the process of 
development.  At Members' request, the Secretar iat's comments in this regard were compiled in 
document G/AG/W/73/Rev.2/Add.1. 
39. Introducing document G/AG/W/73/Rev.2/Add.1, the Secretariat explained the ways in which 
it could assist Members in obtaining notification-rela ted information as described in the first column 
of G/AG/W/73/Rev.2.  Such information could be retrieved from the public web site in the Members’ 
Transparency Toolkit. The current situation with relation to databases maintained by the Agriculture 
and Commodities Division (AGCD) was the following: 
(a) existing AGCD information bases  which had been developed in the course of the last 
15 years compiled information from Tables MA:2, MA:5, ES:1 and DS:1.  A project 
was started in 2010 to harmonize and integrate these information bases aiming to facilitate data input and output;  enhance u ser accessibility;  and improve connectivity 
between modules with a view to designing "cross-pillar" reports
17; 
(b) new AGCD information bases were being developed over the period January-April 
2011 to create SSG modules compiling information from Tables MA:3 and MA:4.  
The Secretariat hoped to be able to deliv er a new product by end-June 2011 in the 
form of a compendium of notified SSG ac tions, possibly cross-referencing individual 
SSG notifications18; 
(c) further integration of existing databases into an Agriculture Online Searchable 
Database (AOSD) was expected to be co mpleted by end-2011, bringing together 
existing as well as new modules, along with  the Consolidated Tariff Schedule (CTS) 
and the Integrated Database (IDB); 
(d) future projects  included: 
(i) linking SPS-IMS and AOSD through a single user interface19; 
(ii) "Questions and Answers" Database, to  be launched in the second half of 
2011, to keep track of the exchanges during the Review Process undertaken 
by the Committee on Agriculture since 1995; 
                                                      
17 Suggestion 11 of document G/AG/W/73/Rev.2 refers. 
18 Suggestion 18 of document G/AG/W/73/Rev.2 refers. 
19 Suggestions 6 or 25 of document G/AG/W/73/Rev.2 could be partly addressed, whilst information 
requirements in suggestions 9, 11, 15 and 21 could be entirely met. G/AG/R/61 
Page 8  
 
  (iii) On-line submission of notifications, to be launched in the second half of 
2011, to streamline and integrate the notification process, including the 
development of input screens, automati c calculation features and validation 
procedures.
20 
40. In summing up, the Secretariat highlighted that the Addendum to the "best practices" 
compilation had been issued in the spirit of ensu ring the best possible service to Members and the 
Secretariat, but that in no way should it disc ourage Members from further considering the voluntary 
application of the suggestions liste d in document G/AG/W/73/Rev.2. 
41. New Zealand, echoed by Australia, the EU and I ndia, registered its appreciation for the work 
of the Secretariat.  The EU was encouraged by th e timelines indicated for some of the planned work 
and committed to working enthusiastically with th e Secretariat in order to meet them.  Pakistan 
recalled that in discussing the future databases, me ntion had been made of the possibility of accessing 
data country-wise and historically in order to enab le cross-pillar searches, and enquired whether this 
was possible.  The Chairperson confirmed that cro ss-pillar searching by product and by country would 
be possible and that in due time Members would be informed of the technical possibilities of the 
database. 
42. Australia acknowledged the Secretariat's role in  the "best practices" initiative whilst pointing 
out that the greatest responsibility lay with Memb ers themselves and as such reiterated their call for 
timeliness and completeness of notifications.  Memb ers would certainly benefit in the longer term 
from the operationalization of the online submission system as well as the AOSD, and looked forward to demonstrations in the future.  As an on-going process of "best practices" for Members and the 
Secretariat, Australia expressed its commitment to pa rticipate in it.  The United States highlighted the 
usefulness of the workshops organized by th e Secretariat which had improved Members' 
understanding and which could possibly accelerate the work to be done on the excel worksheets by having a more common understanding. 
43. New Zealand suggested that the previous practice of making Members' written responses 
available on the Members' web site immediately afte r the meeting be reverted to, to ensure timely 
reporting to capital.  The United States further suggest ed that questions as soon as posed could also be 
posted on the Members' web site to enhance awareness.  The Chairperson welcomed these suggestions, and recalled that ques tions could be raised by Members ahead of the usual deadlines.  
The Secretariat signalled that both suggestions would be followed in the future.   
C. 
LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EXPORTERS21 
44. The Chairperson recalled that during th e formal meeting of the Committee in 
November 2009, Members had supported the idea of updating the list of "significant exporters" in 
document G/AG/2/Add.1 of 16 October 1995.22  The Secretariat had compiled relevant background 
statistical data in document G/AG/W/76 and several  rounds of consultations had been held during 
2010.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to he r oral report on consultations held prior to the 
November 2010 meeting23, as well as the exchange of views from that meeting.24  Two sets of open-
ended informal consultations had b een subsequently held to facilita te Members' participation in the 
                                                      
20 Suggestions 1, 2, 20 and 24 of document G/AG7W/73/Rev.2 could be addressed. 
21 G/AG/2/Add.1 dated 16 October 1995 refers. 
22 Paragraph 27 of G/AG/R/57 refers. 
23 Annex 4 of G/AG/R/60 refers. 
24 Paragraphs 34-38 of G/AG/R/60 refer.  G/AG/R/61 
 Page 9 
 
 
  discussions.  The Chairperson delivered an oral re port on these more recent consultations which were 
held on 24 January and 7 February 2011, respectively.25 
45. The delegations of Australia, Brazil, China,  Costa Rica, Cuba, India, Japan, Mexico, 
New Zealand, Pakistan and Paraguay thanked the Chai rperson for the consultations held over the last 
few months and for her comprehensive report, as well as the Secretariat for the statistical material 
made available in the course of 2010 and 2011. 
46. India advised that it needed to reflect on the Ch airperson's oral report and highlighted certain 
issues.  First, with reference to G/AG/2, India reca lled that it had always questioned the need for, or 
the value of, the revision.   In this respect , India flagged that, in the sentence reading "[…] and shall 
be reviewed  after two years", G/AG/2 referred to "review" rather than "revision".  Moreover, from a 
more legalistic perspective, India maintained that Members had been loosely using the words 
"review" and "revision".  During the February 20 11 consultations, India had duly pointed to the 
difference between those words.  Quoting from a dict ionary, India stated that "review" was when one 
just looked back at things while "revision" was wh en one looked back and corrected the wrong things.  
Consequently, where Members were demanding a revision, from India's standpoint, G/AG/2 simply 
contemplated a review.  Considering the document as a whole, India underlined that a review was 
explicitly foreseen in the case of Table ES:2 but not w ith regard to other notifi cations.  India therefore 
believed that, contrarily to what had been adva nced by one Member in the course of the last 
consultations, a review of Table ES:2 would not lead to the review of other notifications. 
47. A second point was made by India in relation to the third paragraph in pa ge 24 of G/AG/2.  In 
India's view, the phrase "A list of Members that are significant  exporters for the purposes of this 
notification requirement and  of the products concerned  shall be established […]"  clearly indicated 
that the review process had to encompass both th e listed countries as well as the listed products.  
48. Noting further that document G/AG/2 original ly referenced 22 product categories, India 
understood that the Chairman was directed to follow consultations as appropriate in 1995 and 
presumed that such consultation process had led to  the establishment of the List of Significant 
Exporters as contained in G/AG/2/Add.1. India observed, however, that the final List had been 
reduced to 19 products.  In this context, India e nquired about the consultation process leading to that 
outcome, asking the Secretariat to provide a documen t reflecting the reasons thereof as well as past 
deliberations on this matter.   
49. With reference to paragraph 8 of the Chairper son's report, and in response to those Members 
who contended that only government-sourced data should be used in notifications, India also 
underlined that a significant point had been lost.  From India's perspective, it would be important to 
find out how significant exporters were designated in th e first place, in terms of the data used to apply 
the 5 per cent threshold, a figure which no Member appeared to question.   India inquired whether such data had been obtained from Members' notificati ons of exports or by the Secretariat from various 
sources as in the case of document G/AG/W/76.  Pa radoxically, Members appeared to show readiness 
to endorse a list of significant exporters prepared by the Secretariat that would form the basis for 
future Table ES:2 notifications.   According to India,  Members should also in this case recall that the 
data sourced or used by the Secr etariat was not government-validated. 
50. In relation to the first point raised by Indi a, New Zealand considered that semantics and 
language were a moot point as Members were effectiv ely looking at the things that were wrong with 
the previous list and trying to amend them in a way that would lead to improvements.  Chile, 
seconded by Costa Rica, Mexico and Paraguay, warn ed against the basing of discussions on semantics 
rather than on the changing reality of trade.  Su ch an approach could well leave the WTO behind and 
                                                     
 
25 See Annex 4. G/AG/R/61 
Page 10  
 
  weaken the institution.  Moreover, the Spanish translation used the wo rd "revisar".  Etymologically, it 
meant "returning to look at", which was entirely co mpatible with the current exercise since Members 
had returned to look at the situation in this precise notification area.   According to Chile, the current 
exercise was well warranted in so far as language was concerned.  Based on the dictionary of the Real 
Academia Española , Costa Rica further pointed out that "rev isar" meant "submit for a new review to 
correct, amend or repair" which was exactly what Members were trying to achieve. 
51. On past consultations on product categories, the Secretariat clarified that the deliberations on 
notification procedures and formats were starte d initially in the Informal Contact Group on 
Agriculture
26 in 1994.  As regards process, such deliberations conti nued until 8 June 199527 at which 
point the Committee on Agriculture had adopted the final package of notification requirements and 
formats (G/AG/2).  Significant Exporters were de fined as Members having more than five per cent 
share of total world exports in any of the 22 con cerned product categories.  Thereafter, the Chairman 
was simply entrusted to establish the Li st, based on appropriate consultations.28  The Secretariat was 
not in a position to report further on the rationale behind the reduction in the number of products, i.e. 
from 22 to 19. 
52. Australia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Japan, Mexico , Paraguay and the United States echoed the 
Chairperson's observation regarding the obsolescence of  the current list.   Australia, Brazil and Chile 
continued to see value in the Table ES:2 notificatio n requirement for monitoring and surveillance of 
the anti-circumvention provisions, with Chile expr essing frustration at the absence of results with 
respect to this matter.  In their view, the list, est ablished more than 15 year s ago, definitely needed 
updating.  The United States and Paraguay noted that the review itself had been healthy in the sense 
that all Members had taken anothe r complete look at the list:  it was evident that some huge changes 
had occurred in individual product categories compared with the situation prevailing at the time when 
the Uruguay Round Agreements were negotiated whic h was a reflection of the disciplines placed on 
export subsidies and the overall political climate.  To the United States, export statistics revealed 
some fascinating changes and dynamics.  On that b asis, Members had been able to conclude that, as 
reported by the Chairperson, some countries that were currently listed had lost significant exporter 
status and yet, they were still required to submit the Table ES:2 notification.  Cuba underlined that 
this was certainly its case. In the U.S. view, such Members would proba bly not fit in that category for 
the next few years.  Meanwhile, some Member s who had emerged as significant exporters were 
discharged from notifying.   
53.   Pakistan pointed out that, whatever the data, they had to be owned by the country.  In 
Pakistan's view, independently of the way progress w ould be achieved, if the data were not owned by 
the national government, then Members had a problem. As a first step therefore, Pakistan recommended that Members agree that all data originate from national sources.   
54. Referring to the Chairperson's concluding rema rks, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, 
Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Paraguay and the United States supported the proposed two-step 
process whereby a new list of significant exporters w ould first be adopted;  a nd the product coverage 
reviewed thereafter.   New Zealand hoped that such sequencing would render the review process 
manageable.  The United States observed that the fi rst step recommended by the Chairperson seemed 
to make a lot of intuitive sense and recalled that dur ing the consultations, there was equally some very 
                                                     
 
26  See, in particular, document PC/IPL/12.  The Informal Contact Group on Agriculture held various 
consultations, inter alia , on the question of notification requirements and formats in the course of 1994 with a 
view to reaching substantive agreemen t before the entry into force of the WTO Agreement and submitting its 
recommendation to the Sub-Committee on Institutional, Proc edural and Legal Matters (itself established by the 
Preparatory Committee for the WTO to d eal with transitional arrangements). 
27 See also G/AG/W/4. 
28 See G/AG/W/9 (19 products).  G/AG/R/61 
 Page 11 
 
 
  good discussion about products, and the assumption was made that changes in this area were probably 
not worth introducing at this point.  Having s upported the two-step process recommended by the 
Chairperson, the United States and Paraguay further indicated that they would be able to move 
forward expeditiously in that regard.   Beyond the adoption of the two-step process, Japan believed 
that it was equally necessary to consider introducing a system of periodical review of the list, for both 
countries and product categories, in order to keep it up-to-date.   
55. China recommended that the review not only incl ude the list of significant exporters but also 
product groups which, in its view, were too broadly de fined, as in the case of "coarse grains" or "fruit 
and vegetables" where general export statistics in volume terms lacked meaningfulness.  As Members 
were presently in the process of reviewing the list in the context of the export subsidy commitments, 
China held that the review needed  to wholly reflect that purpose and called on all Members to have a 
better and smarter list of significant exporters.  To this effect, China suggested that product groups be 
defined at the sub-heading level (6-digit) of the Harmonized System (HS) no menclature:  a supporting 
table containing such details could be appended to the list as appropriate .    Pakistan supported China's 
recommendation as this would go a long way in Member s' efforts to reform the agricultural trade 
system.  Pakistan wished, in fact, to go a step fo rward by advocating that, at some appropriate stage, 
Members needed to apply the same appr oach to the domestic support pillar.  
56. China reiterated its support for the Committ ee's work to improve the timeliness and 
completeness of notifications.  Chin a had made considerable efforts in promoting the transparency of 
agriculture trade information.  For instance, an agriculture trad e information system had been 
established since 2002, immediately after China's accession to the WTO.  Monthly reports on imports 
and exports of agricultural products together with  sub-reports on 26 specific products were published 
simultaneously.  However, China had faced some data  challenges.  In order to calculate the trade 
values and volumes according to the product definitions set out in the Table ES:2 notification requirements, China needed to convert the sta tistical data collected on an HS basis to the 
nomenclatures applied by the FAO and UN COMTRADE.  Some advice or technical assistance from 
the WTO Secretariat, or even from Members, would be welcome.  The Chairperson confirmed that 
technical assistance would be available to any lis ted newcomer to ensure a smooth transition. 
57. The United States was not entirely convinced that data collection aspects, clarification of the 
type data needed, and HS codes, were really at issue.  The Members that were listed as significant 
exporters since 1995 had been able to meet the Ta ble ES:2 notification requirement without a lot of 
consultations on the exact definition of the data to be tabled.  Referring to a recent consultation held 
among many Members, the United States believed that, for most, the kind of data that would need to 
be notified was pretty clear and did not entail any ha rd work.  For example, in terms of the degree of 
complexity, the Table ES:2 notification bore no comparison with Table DS:1.   During the Review Process held in the morning, many questions on expo rt subsidies had been raised.  The United States 
appreciated having notifying Members actually put in  data and clarify measures introduced in the 
export subsidy area.  This emphasized the value of the Committee and its various functions.  The 
United States encouraged Members to find a way fo rward in order to update the list of significant 
exporters first, and subsequently, the products. 
58. In concluding the discussion, the Chairperson st ated that she wished to remain as close as 
possible to the original mandate stated in page 24 of document G/AG/2.   Great caution had to be 
exercised as, in these consultati ons, the Chairperson believed that there was a mandate for the 
Committee, one for the Chairperson and one for Members.  Document G/AG/2 stated that: " A list of 
Members that are significant exporters for the pur poses of this notification requirement and of the 
products concerned shall be established by the C hairman following consultati on as appropriate and 
shall be reviewed after two years."     G/AG/R/61 
Page 12  
 
  59. The Chairperson informed the Committee that sh e had now concluded he r consultations with 
the entire Membership.  Having taken good note of the comments shared during this meeting, and 
having detected the sense of urgency conveyed by some delegations, the Chairperson endorsed the 
two-step course of action that was suggested during the informal consultations and widely supported.  
As far as process was concerned, the current List of  significant exporters would first be reviewed. The 
introductory paragraph of the document in question
29 would make reference to the establishment of a 
revised list of significant exporters, as appropriate.  Meanwhile, delegations would examine at least 
two additional aspects where there seemed to be si gnificant interest, under the able guidance of the 
incoming Chairman:  (i) the frequency of the review cy cle;  and (ii) the product coverage as defined in 
page 24 of the agreed Notification Procedures and Formats (G/AG/2).    
60. India objected to the Chairperson's proposal.  In  her concluding remarks, the Chairperson had 
referred to the respective mandates of Committee, the Chair and Members.  In India's view, the 
mandate to the Chairperson had to flow from Member s and in this particular instance, Members had 
not mandated the Chairperson to revise the list.  The Chairperson took note of India's statement and 
indicated that her consultations had been conducted building on advice from the Secretariat with a 
view to respond fairly to those Members who continue d to fulfil a notification requirement that solely 
applied to significant exporters.   The Chairperson considered that the only other alternative would 
have been to implement a partial change, i.e. de leting such countries from the list and not adding 
emerging players, which, in her view, would not ha ve constituted a fair repr esentation of evolving 
trade patterns.  India reiterated its objection to th e Chairperson taking a unanimous position despite its 
disapproval. The Chairperson took note of the objection formulated by India. 
D. WTO  LIST OF NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (NFIDC S) 
61. The Chairperson noted that in line with  the Decision adopted by the Committee on 
21 November 199530, the WTO list of NFIDCs was considered at the regular March meetings of the 
Committee.31   Notifications by the Members concerned needed to be accompanied by the relevant 
statistical data concerning the total and net imports , on a value and quantity basis, and their relative 
importance as a proportion of domestic consumption of the products concerned.  The notifications 
should be presented at least 15 days before the regular March meeting of the Committee and the 
Secretariat would make them available for review by Members, upon request. 
62. The Chairperson informed the Committee that  the requests from Grenada and Swaziland had 
initially been made in the March 2010 meeting but th at they were gathering the necessary statistical 
data.  The Secretariat had received this statistical da ta on 18 January and 22 Ma rch 2011, respectively.  
In addition, on 8 March 2011 a new request had b een received by the Delegation of the Maldives 
accompanied by the relevant statistical data. 
63. The Maldives informed the Comm ittee that as a net food-importer and LDC, they had hereto 
been a beneficiary of the WTO NFIDC list by virtue  of paragraph 1 of document G/AG/3 and that on 
graduation from the UN LDC list as of 1 January  2011 and in accordance with paragraph 2 of the 
decision, the Maldives had provided supporting data to the Secretariat on imports of basic food items 
for the period 2006-2010.  The Maldives asked that  their request be duly considered.  Swaziland 
informed the Committee that following up on their pending request, the relevant data had been 
compiled and submitted to the Secretariat.   
                                                      
29 Subsequently issued as G/AG/W/82 dated 6 April 2011. 
30 See G/AG/3 dated 24 November 1995. 
31 See G/AG/5/Rev.8 dated 22 March 2005.  G/AG/R/61 
 Page 13 
 
 
  64. The Committee agreed to include Grenada, Maldives and Swaziland in the WTO List of 
NFIDCs and requested the Secretariat to revise the list accordingly.32 
E. RENEWAL OF AD HOC OBSERVER STATUS TO INTER -AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR 
AGRICULTURAL COOPERATION (IICA) 
65. The Chairperson recalled the Committee's decision in March 2010 to grant ad hoc  observer 
status to IICA33 and the need for invitations in this c ase to therefore be extended on a meeting-by-
meeting basis.  The Committee agreed  to invite IICA to participate in the June 2011 regular session as 
an ad hoc  observer. 
F. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
66. In light of the agreement reached at the meeting of the Council on Trade in Goods (CTG) at 
its meeting on 21 March 2011, the Committee elected Mr Jonas Skei of Norway as the Chairman of 
the regular session of the Committee on Agriculture.  Mr J. Skei will hold office until the end of the 
first meeting of the Committee in 2012. 
67. A large number of delegations, as well as DDG Harsha V. Singh and Clem Boonekamp on 
behalf of the Secretariat, took the floor to express their warm gratitude and individual appreciation to 
the outgoing Chairperson, Ms. Valeria Csukasi, for the professional manner in which she had 
conducted the Committee meeti ngs since June 2007.   
G. OTHER BUSINESS : DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
68. The next (62nd) regular meeting of the Committee on Agri culture is scheduled to be held on 
23 June 2011.  On this basis, the reminder airgra m will be issued on 27 May 2011 and the convening 
airgram will be issued on 10 June 2011.   
 
_______________ 
 
                                                      
32 See G/AG/5/Rev.9 dated 6 April 2011. 
33 See also G/AG/W/29/Rev.7. G/AG/R/61 
Page 14  
 
  Annex 1 
 
Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised
 
under the Committee's Working Procedures  
 
 
(i) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2) : 
  Canada G/AG/N/CAN/83  Colombia G/AG/N/COL/41 
 Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/33 
 European Union G/AG/N/EEC/67  Guatemala G/AG/N/GTM/39  India G/AG/N/IND/5  Norway G/AG/N/NOR/56  
 
(ii) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)
: 
  Argentina G/AG/N/ARG/30  Bahrain G/AG/N/BHR/5  Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/26 
 Bulgaria G/AG/N/BGA/16 
 Canada G/AG/N/CAN/82  China G/AG/N/CHN/17  European Union G/AG/N/EEC/68  Former Yugoslav Republic G/AG/N/MKD/10 
    of Macedonia 
 Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/21  Norway G/AG/N/NOR/59  Poland G/AG/N/POL/67  Thailand G/AG/N/THA/72  United States G/AG/N/USA/77 
 
(iii) new or modified domestic support meas ures exempt from reduction (Table DS:2)
: 
  European Union G/AG/N/EEC/69  Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/22 
 
(iv) export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)
: 
 
 Israel G/AG/N/ISR/46 ES:1 & ES:2  Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/20 ES:1 & ES:2 
 
(v) export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1):
 
  Former Yugoslav Republic G/AG/N/MKD/12     of Macedonia 
Kyrgyz Republic G/AG/N/KGZ/3 
Moldova G/AG/N/MOL/3 
Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.1  G/AG/R/61 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Annex 2 
 
Notifications subject to review in respect  of which no questions have been raised  
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
 
 
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) 
  Colombia G/AG/N/COL/35/Add.1 
  Guatemala G/AG/N/GTM/38   India G/AG/N/IND/4 
  India G/AG/N/IND/6 
  Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/13/Add.13 
  
(ii) imports under tariff and othe r quota commitments (Table MA:2) 
  Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/30 
  Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/7 
 
 (iii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5) 
  Colombia G/AG/N/COL/43 
  Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/31   European Union G/AG/N/EEC/66 
  Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/54 
  Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/81   Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/82   Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/84   Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/85 
  Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/86 
 
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1) 
  Canada G/AG/N/CAN/17/Rev.1 
  Canada G/AG/N/CAN/35/Rev.1   Canada G/AG/N/CAN/37/Rev.2 
  Canada G/AG/N/CAN/43/Rev.1 
  Canada G/AG/N/CAN/49/Rev.1   Canada G/AG/N/CAN/53/Rev.1   Canada G/AG/N/CAN/60/Rev.1   Canada G/AG/N/CAN/66/Rev.1 
  Canada G/AG/N/CAN/69/Rev.1 
  Canada G/AG/N/CAN/71/Rev.1   Colombia G/AG/N/COL/42   Israel G/AG/N/ISR/47   Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/13/Rev.3   Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/49/Corr.1 
 
(v) new or modified domestic suppor t measures exempt from reduction  
(Table DS:2) 
  Former Yugoslav Republic G/AG/N/MKD/11 
       of Macedonia G/AG/R/61 
Page 16  
 
  (vi) export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3) 
  Colombia G/AG/N/COL/44 
  Costa Rica G/AG/N/CRI/32   European Union G/AG/N/EEC/70   Former Yugoslav Republic G/AG/N/MKD/9 
       of Macedonia 
  The Gambia G/AG/N/GMB/4   Hong Kong, China G/AG/N/HKG/29   Japan G/AG/N/JPN/161   Kuwait G/AG/N/KWT/2 
  Lesotho G/AG/N/LSO/1 
  Pakistan G/AG/N/PAK/12   Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/50/Corr.1   Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/83   Ukraine G/AG/N/UKR/6 
  Zimbabwe G/AG/N/ZWE/5 
 
 
  G/AG/R/61 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Annex 3 
 
Notifications circulated after the issuance of the convening airgram  
  
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) 
Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/8 25 March 2011 
(ii) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): 
Chinese Taipei  G/AG/N/TPKM/87 25 March 2011 
 G/AG/R/61 
Page 18  
 
  Annex 4 
 
Informal consultations on the List of Significant Exporters for the purposes of 
 
the Table ES:2 notification requirement  (24 January and 7 February 2010)  
 
Oral report by the Chairperson on 31 March 2011 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 
1. Following up on the discussions we had at the end of 2009 as well as our formal and informal 
meetings in the course of 2010, I have called two additional rounds of info rmal consultations in 
January and in February 2011, respectively.  Over all, the consultations have sought feedback on 
important matters such as: 
(a) the choice of the most appropriate reference period to identify Significant Exporters;  
(b) the frequency with which the List of Significant Exporters should be reviewed. 
2. Furthermore, the consultations also addressed certain aspects identified as fundamental by a 
couple of delegations such as: 
(a) the value-addition of the Table ES:2 notification requirement per se ;   
(b) the need to update the List of Significant Exporters as contained in G/AG/2/Add.1;   
(c) the scope of the review exercise; and  
(d) product coverage 
OUTCOMES 
3. With respect to each of these individual elem ents of discussion, the following outcomes have 
been achieved: 
Reference period  
4. Two scenarios for the calculation of trade shares have been considered.  Under the first one, 
there has been a constructive suggestion to move away from calculating simp le averages of export 
shares based on the last 3 years for which data are available and rather use a common reference period 
for all product categories, i.e. 2005-2007.  Under th e single year scenario, rather than picking the most 
recent year for which data are available, all e xport shares have been aligned with 2007 data.  
5. To facilitate the consideration of alternative re ference periods, the Secretariat made available 
a comparative table showing export shares resulting from these two different scenarios and 
simultaneously indicating Members with export subsidy commitments for the concerned product 
categories, thus providing a full picture of all Members that would potentially be subject to the Table ES:2 notifications requirement.  This material is  accessible from the Members' password-protected 
web site.   G/AG/R/61 
 Page 19 
 
 
  6. It should be reported that there is substan tial convergence towards adopting a three-year 
reference period (2005-2007) to review the List of Significant Exporters. 
Frequency of review of the List  
7. There has been broad convergence towards the a doption of three- to five-year review cycles 
for future updates.  However, fu rther discussions might be warranted. 
Value addition of Table ES:2 notification requirement 
8. Doubts were raised as to how transparency  and monitoring and surveillance could be 
enhanced by simply providing the kind of information currently sought by way of the Table ES:2 format.  Export shares could simply be calculated by the Secretariat. In  this connection, the 
importance of having government-endorsed, i.e. official notification of exports statistics, not just a 
compilation of statistics gathered from various sour ces, was highlighted.  Furthermore, the common 
understanding was that it remained the prerogative a nd responsibility of each Member to notify.  In 
that sense, notifications could never be substitute d by Secretariat statistical compilations.  The 
Secretariat clarified that it did not have the aut hority to present alternativ e information that would 
replace, or supplement, Members' own Table ES:2 notifications under the Committee's procedures. 
9. Participants underlined the continued value of Table ES:2 notifications in terms of 
transparency and anti-circumvention as well as their enhancing effect on the monitoring and surveillance functions of the Committee on Agriculture.   Some reiterated the view that the need for 
monitoring and surveillance of the commitment not  to provide export subsidies would be even 
stronger after their phasing out as part of the DDA.  By contrast, one delegation was not convinced by 
the value addition of the Table ES:2 notification requi rement, especially in the light of expected Doha 
Round outcomes.   
10. An important clarification was made: the manda te underlying the current review exercise only 
relates to the List of Significant Exporters of the product categories identified on page 24 of G/AG/2.  
It does not concern the renegotiation of the Table ES:2 notification requirement per se , independently 
of whether the Table ES:2 format added value to the monitoring and surveillance function of the 
Committee on Agriculture.  Importantly, participants  concurred that the Notification Requirements 
and Formats established by the Committee in 1995 should not be reopened for a number of reasons, 
including Members' involvement in the on-going DDA negotiations.  
Need to update the List   
11. As in previous consultations, Members reitera ted their support for reviewing the List as per 
the mandate contained on page 24 of G/AG/2.  An immediate updating of the List was considered not 
only necessary but urgent on several grounds.  
12. Firstly, this task was long overdue.  As originally foreseen in G/AG/2, the List should have 
been reviewed "after two years"  following its establishment by the Chairman.  Secondly, this topic 
has been the subject of detailed consideration ever  since Members raised attention to it in the 
November 2009 meeting of the Committee on Agricultu re. Several delegations have reiterated their 
adherence to the transparency principle and feel that it is time to move forward.  A tool which, in their 
view is of crucial importance to the Committee 's Review Process, must be updated. Thirdly, 
participants felt that a revised List would be valuable from an institutional as well as a systemic 
perspective, regardless of the DDA outcome.  The Co mmittee urgently needed a List that reflects the 
current reality in terms of the participa tion of the most important exporters.   G/AG/R/61 
Page 20  
 
  13. Statistical material has shown that some players, like Costa Rica, Cuba, Honduras, Pakistan, 
Philippines or Zimbabwe were no longer Significant Expor ters of fruit, sugar, co tton, vegetable oils or 
tobacco.  Relative market shares have evolved, not necessarily because of dwindling exports, but 
because others had emerged as significant players in th e course of the last 15 years.  The Secretariat 
has reported instances where notifying Members started raising concerns over the standing 
notification obligation for commodities in respect of which they were no longer Significant Exporters. 
Recently, I have also received a formal lette r from a delegation soliciting my good offices as 
Chairperson of the Committee on Agriculture to ensu re that it be exempted from complying with the 
Table ES:2 requirement.     
14. As several delegations have put it, should the curre nt List continue to be used, the value of the 
Committee's monitoring role would be compromi sed with adverse impacts on transparency. 
Scope of the review exercise and product categories 
15. The debate has shown that certain aspects will probably require further examination.  Some 
participants believe that the review exercise s hould be more comprehensive and should encompass the 
simultaneous examination of product categories and Significant Exporters.  
16. To facilitate the consideration of this point , the Secretariat circulated summary tables on 
export subsidy reduction commitments to give an overview of the type of products (i.e. whether 
broadly defined, or whether defined at a disaggregat ed level), and their stage of processing, that were 
already subject to Table ES:2 notification requireme nts because they were scheduled.  Participants' 
attention was drawn to the fact that some HS Ch apters clearly covered semi-processed and processed 
products.  Consequently, processed products are not excluded from the scope of the Table ES:2 
requirement.  Members who implemented export subsidy programmes in the past on processed 
agricultural products, and who therefore scheduled  reduction commitments in their respect, were 
required to submit the relevant Table ES:1 as well as the relevant Table ES:2 showing data on total 
exports on a basis comparable to that provided in Table ES:1.  
17. As for those Significant Exporters who did not  have reduction commitments, the Secretariat 
noted that, although the product categories were defi ned in broad terms on pa ge 24 of G/AG/2, they 
did not explicitly exclude the r espective "processed" items falling with in the same product grouping.   
Finally, the footnote in G/AG/2/Add.1 was also relevant in considering this matter. 
18. One specific suggestion has been tabled rega rding the adoption of a two-step process to 
continue addressing these aspects collectively, should Members wish to pursue this approach.  This 
would consist in revising the List of Significant Ex porters immediately, and later on, engage in the 
more time-consuming process of re-examining the pr oduct categories listed in page 24 of document 
G/AG/2.   This suggestion has attracted a fair amount  of support during the informal consultations we 
had in January and February.    
CONCLUSION 
19. The two rounds of consultations held in 2011 were convened in an open-ended format.  They 
have been extremely useful and constructive.  After listening carefully to the views expressed 
regarding the revision of the List of Significant Exporters contained in document G/AG/2/Add.1, my feeling is that a large number of participants have reiterated their support for an immediate updating 
of the current List of Significant Exporters based on the statistical material examined so far.  
__________